Page 4042 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The only other part—and this is worth noting—that Mr Corbell’s amendment changes is to get rid of the words “with concern”. The government is not concerned, apparently, about the announcement that the cost of construction has blown out to $363 million. That is not a concern, according to this amendment from Simon Corbell. That is a reflection of what this government thinks about major projects and what this government thinks about economic management.
This dwarfs all of the other blow-outs that we have had in capital works projects in the history of the territory—a quarter of a billion dollars. This government, and anyone who accepts this amendment, is saying: “We’re not concerned about that. We’re not concerned about a $243 million blow-out in the cost of this project.”
We will not be supporting this amendment. I understand there is some wish to adjourn this matter, although I think the lunchtime suspension will be occurring as well. We will not be supporting this amendment as it stands because, firstly, it does not give as detailed a chronology as we need. There should be a full account of what is known and of all of the detail of how this cost blow-out was allowed to happen and what were the factors that led to it.
Mr Rattenbury has raised a number of issues. They are all important. We need to look at how much of it is about the delay, how much of it is about additional costs of materials, how much of it is about an underestimation of the scope and how much of it is about internal management factors—how much of it is about not administering it properly. All of those things are possible factors that have led to this $243 million blow-out.
When you have such a massive blow-out, when you have a blow-out that is so significant—$243 million—you would have to assume that all of these factors have gone into it, and that it could not simply be that they underestimated the amount of concrete. It could not, surely, simply be that it was really about concrete. It defies credibility that that is all there is to the blow-out. So all of these things need to be put on the table.
Mr Corbell’s amendment should not be supported because it gives less accountability, it gives less detail, and, indeed, it excuses this massive blow-out and takes away the word “concern”. The Assembly should express its concern that we have seen the largest cost blow-out for a capital works project in the history of the territory. We will not be supporting the amendment. I commend Mrs Dunne’s motion.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Treasurer, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Services and Minister for Women) (12.05): In October 2007, after appropriate consultation with the voting shareholders and the government, Actew committed to the enlarged Cotter Dam project. At that time, the government was provided with detailed information on a number of water security options, economic and financial analyses, climate change scenarios and preliminary cost indications.
The estimate of $145 million to enlarge the Cotter Dam provided by Actew in October 2007 was based on preliminary information that was available at the time,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .